Change Your Image
Partnerfrankreich
Reviews
Parfum (2018)
I must not be "sophisticated" enough to enjoy this one...
It's strange - I am quite a fan of "German noir", and am in the process of learning German as a foreign language and am relatively well advanced in it, so this series should have appealed to me greatly.
Unfortunately, it did not. For one thing, the constant, almost continuous, flips between the present-day action and the flashbacks bewildered me after a while, but more importantly, they seemed to serve little purpose other than explaining that a group of teenagers who are incredibly cruel with each other (unsurprisingly since their parents and teachers are already incredibly cruel with them), including two girls who are incredibly accepting of the abuse they suffer at the hands of the three boys, but who all unite to be incredibly cruel towards another young person not in their group, all grow up to be adults who continue to act in the same way, i.e., being incredibly cruel with each other, especially the women, who continue to be incredibly accepting of their abuse.
Except that of course, given that this all takes place in the context of a murder mystery, you would think this has some relevance to the resolution of the mystery, except that it turns out that the whole repetitive spiral of abuse between the members of the group has little to do with the denouement, which seems to come virtually out of nowhere but does facilitate at least one member of this incredibly cruel group to commit yet further incredible cruelty (admittedly, towards another person who is being incredibly cruel to her).
Given some of the exceptionally good reviews here, I can only assume that I am just not sophisticated enough to understand why this series was considered so good, but I do not.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
The « Coda » version is MUCH better.
I have just finished watching the « Coda » version on Netflix, and all I can say is that it is REALLY better than the original theatrical release and transforms the film from maybe a 5 out of 10 to an 8.
Most of the theatrical version's discontinuity is fixed, the gaps are remedied and the film finally MAKES SENSE. Coppola is even wise enough to cut out some of the amateurish acting of his daughter (who can hardly be blamed for having to take on the role at the last minute).
It's not masterpiece level like the first two films but it's a solid achievement and deserves a second chance by the critics.
Stay Close (2021)
Not bad...not great.
I think that the very negative views are misplaced.
It's true that there are some awfully wide plot holes, including the logic of the basic premise underlying the whole series and also true that the same story could have been told better in less episodes : the "filler" parts necessary to stretch it to eight episodes are painfully obvious when you watch it.
Still, we are left with an interesting story (once you have entered the suspension of disbelief zone), some quite decent acting and a denouement that I really did not expect, plus a nice post-denouement shocker that ties up one missing piece, but not in a very pleasant manner.
I'd give it 7/10 : not really bad, but not really great either.
The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)
Excellent film that stays with you
This has got to be the craziest film review I have ever written on here.
I saw The Banshees of Inisherin yesterday in a Parisian cinema and I haven't stopped thinking about it since then, but I can't possibly tell you why.
Sure, the acting is absolutely top-notch (not only the four leads, but even the minor characters, like the actors playing the policeman, the grocery store manageress and the local "witch" (I don't know what else to call her), all of whom did their acting job so well that I wanted to get up and punch each of them in the nose (luckily, one of them does get just that punch from one of the leads) but that is true of many other films.
Nor is it the plot of the film itself, which may be a fantastic metaphor for the Irish Civil War but makes little or no sense if taken literally, and even if it did, the dénouement of which is entirely illogical, although not unexpected in the context of the film.
In fact, I simply cannot put my finger on why I found this film to have such a dramatic effect on me, but it did.
I encourage you all to see it and make up your mind for yourself.
Paint Drying (2016)
Does not explore the subject sufficiently.
Unlike most of the posters here, I feel that, despite the length of the film, which would normally provide a gifted director with the opportunity to explore this multifaceted subject to the fullest, Mr. Lynne failed to answer a number of fundamental questions.
OK, we are afforded the rare occasion to watch paint dry. Fair enough. But WHY does the paint dry? What is its motivation for drying? What inner struggles does it face in deciding whether to dry or not? What metaphysical conclusions are to be drawn from its drying? What theological consequences flow from its drying? Why is it that wet paint inevitably dries but, having dried, it can never return to its initial moist state without additional paint being applied? What does this tell us about the supposedly triumphant march of universal progress? Is this a subtle statement about the human condition? Are we all doomed to perpetual drying during our short stay on Earth?
Obviously, a sequel will be needed to deal with these issues. Humanity demands "Paint Drying - Part 2"!
West Side Story (2021)
A triumph -- and not "woke" at all.
Spielberg's take on "West Side Story" is just as good as Wise's, and that is saying a lot! I won't bother inundating you with all the good things about the film, as other reviewers here have said them all and undoubtedly better than I could. But I would like to address two of the criticisms made by others, as I think they are entirely unwarranted.
1. "Spielberg took too many liberties with the structure of both the stage version and the previous film version simply out of egoism". The classic examples given of this are his setting "One Hand, One Heart" at the Cloisters and "I Feel Pretty" at Gimbels.
I can't disagree more. The original setting of "One Hand, One Heart" in Maria's sewing shop made it, in my view, artificial, almost like two kids playing "house". The setting in the Cloisters is, on the other hand, deeply moving -- both Tony and Maria come from ethnic groups that are deeply religious (Polish and Puerto Rican), and having them seized by an almost religious ecstasy in a place that is, after all, supposed to resemble a monastery, made perfect sense to me. Indeed, it is the one point in the film where I was moved to tears on hearing the song.
Similarly, staging "I Feel Pretty" at Gimbels gave Maria the chance to imagine herself as a genuine beauty against the background of displays of the actual glamorous styles of the epoch. More importantly, it illustrates her yearning to be a real part of "American" society, imagining herself to fit right in with the clothing and the models of what was at that time one of New York's most upscale department stores.
2. The accusation that the film is nothing more than a "woke" reimagining of the original film.
A. Having the Hispanic characters speak Spanish among themselves is in my view perfectly natural and frankly, I do not really see the need for subtitling. Spielberg bends over backwards to make it clear to the audience what is going on, even resorting to the somewhat artificial tactic of having either the characters themselves or Lieutenant Schrank insisting that they change to speaking in English (in the case of the characters, ostensibly in order to gain facility with English and in the case of the Lieutenant, more harshly so that he can understand what they are saying.
B. If someone hadn't pointed out to me that the actress playing "Anybody's" is transgender in real life, I wouldn't have known - she is no more androgynous than was the same character in the 1961 film, and in any event it is a valid plot point that she desperately wants to be accepted by the Jets as one of their own, and if that means being even more "masculine" than they are, I don't think that invalidates anything.
C. In any event, and much in the way that Mercutio in the original Romeo and Juliet story that both the 1961 film and this one are inspired by calls down a "plague on both your houses" (the Montagues and the Capulets), both the Jets and the Sharks are displayed equally unfavorably as thugs, particularly (and correctly) by the police, who take pains not only to insult them equally but perhaps more importantly, to remind them (in separate scenes) that there IS a way out of their situation but that they refuse to take advantage of the opportunity of doing so.
So why am I giving the film a 9 rather than a 10? Only because, oddly enough, one of the principal strengths of the film is also a minor weakness. In the original film, having the characters break into song and dance never seems artificial - you never really forget that this is a musical, after all. But Spielberg presents a much grittier version of life on the "turf" than did Wise -- and the violence, whether actually presented or lurking in the background, ready to come to the fore at any moment, is far more real. Bizarrely, that makes the musical interludes seem almost like an interruption into the flow of the action of the film. But this is a minor point.
The Magnificent Seven (2016)
A much more than adequate reboot
I saw the film with a lot of trepidation beforehand - "Oh, for heaven's sake, a remake of the classic 19060 film for the "woke" generation, with a corrupt white businessman as the villain and a sampling of every oppressed minority group as the heroes; who needs that?"
Guess what? I was dead wrong.
Yes, of course, the film DOES play on the "woke generation's" sensibilities, with the heroes including a black man, a Chinese-American, a Native American, a Mexican and a woman who by her own statement has "more balls" than the men in the town, and a white male villain who is the epitome of "bad guy" capitalism.
But the villain is grounded in actual history (the land wars, much as did "Shane" in its day. More importantly, the film does a damn good job as a standalone Western, with some excellent action scenes that make you cheer for the heroes, and an introductory scene that really does make you hate the villain and long for his defeat -- in other words, it's a classic "good guys against bad guys" story that is the heart of any good Western.
I give it eight out of ten, and deduct the two points only because, as good as it is, it doesn't quite stand up either to the original 1960's film (pretty hard to top Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen) or the film that inspired both of them, Seven Samurai.
De Gaulle (2020)
Surprisingly good and effective
It is the 80th anniversary of Charles de Gaulle's famous "Appeal of 18th June" speech on the BBC and, even though this film originally came out in March, it was interrupted by the COVID-19 crisis and has just returned to the cinema literally in time for the anniversary.
I was expecting a sort of Hollywood-style hagiography but I was very pleasantly surprised. Lambert Wilson, one of France's finest actors, plays De Gaullle in a very nuanced manner, and you never really can decide whether he is motivated solely by a desire to save France from defeat and dishonor or whether, as his enemies in the film claim, he is guided by ambition and a desire to make a name for himself -- but in either case, he was, like Churchill, the right man in the right place at the right time, symbolizing the determination of at least some French to resist the invader at all costs. Isabelle Carré also does a stunning turn as Yvonne de Gaulle, who for the French public occupied a place similar to that of Mamie Eisenhower.
In fact, there isn't a single actor who doesn't do a sterling job in this film, and that goes double for the girl who plays their Down's syndrome stricken daughter, Anne, who steals every scene she is in.
The real Charles de Gaulle was no saint - he gave little credit to the efforts of the Americans, British and Canadians in liberating France and considered them as little more than another sort of occupying power, and his undiplomatic, even crude speech in Quebec supporting the separatist movement was an amazing slap in the face of his Canadian hosts. But there is no denying that he was first and foremost a patriot in the true sense of the term, and this film shows him, warts and all, in just such a manner.
Autopsy (2008)
Honestly makes you wonder just what a "horror film" is.
First, a little bit of history here. At the dawn of cinema, a "horror film" was a film that scared you, with some elements of either supernatural or melodramatic nature, most of which was suggested and otherwise left to the imagination of the viewer. Both the silent film "Nosferatu" and the original talkie "Dracula" were like this: we knew that vampire was attacking and sucking the blood out of his victims but we never really saw the gore -- it was suggested only, which didn't stop viewers from being genuinely scared and shocked.
Over time, various taboos were shed: Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" showed actual blood pouring from a victim (albeit in an almost sanitized way), and gradually "slasher films" emerged. Now the idea was still to scare you, but in a more realistic manner that left little to the imagination - the gore was actually there in living color.
More recently, the emphasis in "horror films" has been on the gore aspect, which was more important than the "scare" aspect. The horror came more from seeing what the victims were suffering than on the fear that the viewer felt. But even though the importance of the elements of fear and gore had been reversed, the idea was still to stir the emotions of the viewer.
With films like "Autopsy", the element of fear has been eradicated entirely. The viewer frankly does not give a damn about what happens to the protagonists or whether any of them survive. All that is portrayed is the gore. The all too predictable result is that the viewer's emotions are not stirred in the slightest, except perhaps to ask "how can they top the gore in the previous scene with something even gorier?" "Autopsy" is simply not a "horror film" anymore -- nobody is horrified by any aspect of the film; the sensation of horror and shock has been replaced entirely by a morbid curiosity as to just how further along the spectrum of gore the film is ready to go.
You might as well just save yourself the price of admission and ask your local butcher if you can hang around the back room of his shop a bit.
Joel (2018)
Intriguing...and disquieting.
Diego and Cecile, an Argentinian couple living in Terra del Fuego (where Diego is employed as a foreman in a foresting operation) and unable to have children, are informed, to their somewhat cautious joy, that a boy is available for adoption.
Although the boy is older than they had originally been informed and appears to come from a troubled background, he is tenderly accepted into their household and it is clear that the adoptive parents are really doing their best to give him a loving home and to see to his schooling, which is somewhat lacking.
However, things take a decided turn for the worse when it develops that the boy, who has spent his youth being brought up by various relatives, at least one of whom is currently serving a sentence in prison, has been bragging to his schoolmates about taking (and possibly dealing) drugs and engaging in other criminal behavior (it it never quite clear how much the boy is assuming the role of his uncle and how much of his bragging is actually true).
The parents of the other children learn of his bragging and are up in arms. The discovery by Cecile of what is happening, the reactions of both adoptive parents and the way in which this affects their relationship with the other parents is what makes up the development of the film.
It is a well-acted and directed film, which portrays in a sensitive manner an intriguing situation in which everybody is right and nobody is wrong. Unlike what might have been a Hollywood-type treatment in which righteousness prevails over ignorant prejudice, the genius of the film is that everybody's point of view is expressed in an entirely good faith manner, with every parent genuinely seeking what is best for their children. The viewer is left with the very disquieting feeling that the manner in which (s)he would have reacted in the same situation would depend solely on which child they were the parent of -- which may be exactly what the author intended.
Vita & Virginia (2018)
Just didn't work for me
I know that this was adapted from a successful play and somebody obviously gave a huge amount of attention to re-creating the period atmosphere and successfully exploiting the transition from stage to film by providing some awe-inspiring photography, scenery and sets, but they lost both my wife and me almost at the beginning by the dialogue -- every line seems to have been written with the intention of eliciting a response of "my, wasn't THAT profound!" from the audience.
While I'm sure that the written correspondence between the principals actually did employ such language (they were both writers, after all), I can't believe that they spoke to each other (and to the other persons portrayed in the film) in such a manner uninterruptedly. After a while, you begin to long for somebody to make a less poetic/witty comment for once; unfortunately the only person who speaks directly and to the point is Lady Sackwell, Vita's mother, who is obviously the villain of the piece, so the viewer begins to equate directness with nastiness.
Milosc i milosierdzie (2019)
Good film but mostly for those already convinced.
This is quite a good film describing the life and work of Helena Kowalska, who entered a convent as Sister Maria Faustyna and experienced divine visions of Jesus Christ expressing emphasis on His ability to accord Divine Mercy to believers, even in the most extreme circumstances, and asked her to commission a portrait of Him in which such merciful attributes literally emanate from him in the form of rays of forgiveness. Sister Faustyna was ultimately canonized and is now a Saint of the Catholic Church.
The story is initially presented in "docudrama" style, with actors portraying the principal participants (Christ Himself, Saint Faustyna, Father Michal Sopocko, her confessor who encouraged her to write a diary of her experienced and ultimately helped commission the portrait, and other participants. The second part of the film is devoted to interviews with various spokespersons explaining in further detail the concept of Divine Mercy.
The film itself is quite good: the production values are excellent and the actors do a good job (with special mention to the actress portraying Saint Faustyna).
However, the film clearly speaks the strongest to those viewers already convinced of the truth of Saint Faustyna's visions and the concept of Divine Mercy. A significant portion of the film is given over to pseudo "scientific" proof of the visions, including a somewhat ludicrous sequence in which it is "proven" that the head of Christ as portrayed in the painting corresponds to the image of the Shroud of Turin, thereby demonstrating without doubt the veracity of her visions. There are many possible explanations for this (after all, the popular image we all have of Christ is fairly universal).
It seems to me that the film would have been better off either simply expounding further on the concept of Divine Mercy itself or taking a different approach to convincing those unaccepting of its virtues, e.g. by showing how appealing a concept of univeral forgiveness is, rather than trying -- and in my view failing -- to provide a "scientific" basis for it.
In short, if you are Catholic and especially if you find the concept of Divine Mercy to be particularly comforting, you will probably find the film to be an uplifting and emotional experience. If you are not, then I do not think this will be the film that convinces you.
Unga Astrid (2018)
Great film but leaves some questions unanswered.
The film itself is excellent and Alba August, who portrays Astrid, is unbelievably good in her role and well supported by the rest of the cast. The cinematography is awe-inspiring and you really do feel that you are in early 20th Sweden.
My only quibble, which prevents me from giving a full 10 stars, is that I feel it doesn't really provide the answer to the central question : why and how did Astrid Lindgren become the world-famous author of children's stories which, instead of simply preaching morality, encouraged children to give a bit of free rein to their childhood?
The film attempts to do this, of course, but in a somewhat "Hollywoodian" manner (Astrid is distraught at having had to give her son born out of wedlock to foster care for some time and, when she recovers her son, uses her story-telling powers to reconnect with him), but I can't believe that this was the single driving force.
The film also glides over what in more modern times would be considered as somewhat unsettling behavior : a secretary who simply cannot resist sleeping with, not one but two married bosses (and ultimately marrying the second one, who left his wife for her). The first situation is glossed over by portraying the wife as an already unstable personage prior to her husband's meeting Astrid, the second is ignored entirely (a note in the credits explains that she married Mr. Lindgren but not that he left his wife for her). I know that Astrid Lindgren has, quite properly, been considered considered a heroine to generations of children (and their parents), but I thought this was sweetening the sugar, so to speak.
Still, an engrossing and thoroughly enjoyable film.
Of Human Bondage (1934)
MISLEADING TITLE - NO BONDAGE SCENES!
I have seen this film from beginning to end, and there are NO BONDAGE SCENES!
OK, I was ready for their being no ANIMAL bondage scenes (which is my real kink) given the title, but there weren't any bondage scenes with humans either!
What gives? Did the Hays Committee insist on their removal, or what?
[OK, I'll leave now.]
Colette (2018)
Captivating
I have just returned from a viewing of "Colette" in Paris (where, to my disappointment, given its subject matter, it has done poorly at the box office). It is an excellent film and unlike some of the critics posting here, I think both Keira Knightly and Dominic West perform very well indeed in their roles. The period sets and costumes are stunning as well and you are quite quickly drawn into their world and don't want to leave it, despite the shenanigans going on -- the viewer is captivated (at least I was).
I would have given the film full marks (10/10) but for two problems I had : first, the musical score, which, whenever a dramatic event is about to occur, is reduced to calling upon soap-opera type effects. Second, although Colette did of course have several women lovers, and although the film admirably refrains from turning this into a "political" message throughout the film, this is spoiled by the ending credits, which deliberately mislead you into thinking that, freed from the shackles of her marriage, Colette lived the rest of her life in a contented and open lesbian relationship with her female lover, when in fact, although there is no denying that Colette enjoyed romantic relationships with both sexes, she not only remarried (a man) but then actually took his son from a previous relationship as a lover as well, ultimately divorced again and then yet again remarried and stayed with her last husband for the rest of her life. That sort of spoiled what was up to then a much more favorable impression that I had of the film.
Still, I found it to be an entrancing and believable excursion to the beginning of Colette's life as a writer and artist, and recommend it highly.
Volontaire (2018)
Woman in search of herself joins the Navy -- un-Hollywood style
The premise of the film has all the potential to be nothing more than a French version of "Private Benjamin" or "GI Jane" (young woman in search of her destiny finds it in the armed forces), but it is better than that. In the Hollywood style film the woman would be some maladjusted schnook who would, in the course of the film, acquire maturity and guts and, in a ringing tribute to feminism, emerge at the end as a valiant heroine who saves the day and outdoes the men who have been harassing her throughout the film.
But thankfully, it isn't -- this is a much subtler film. The woman, while seeking her way, is far from a schnook, even at the outset (she is university-trained and has masters' degrees in two foreign languages) and when we first meet her she is not a raw recruit undergoing basic training but is already a lieutenant, albeit one chained to a desk jockey position freshly designated as an assistant to the head of the training academy. But although she has poise and bearing, she is looking for more than that -- she wants to apply for commando training, something her boss will not let her do, and not only for professional reasons (it's not much of a spoiler to say that it becomes clear pretty quickly that both he and she are struggling with nascent romantic feelings for each other).
How this all develops is the subject of the film. It is all done with sophisticated understatement and never descends into Hollywood-type bathos. The training scenes are realistic, the love scenes (especially one at the beginning of the film) are erotic but never pornographic and the film charts the progress of the heroine, both emotionally and militarily, naturally and without the over dramatization or the caricature you might have feared.
I saw the film in France and I hope that it makes it to the English-speaking world.
Dalida (2016)
Quite good:
I went to see this with my wife (I'm American, she is French) primarily in order to please her and thinking that this would be a weepy, melodramatic biopic of interest only to hard-core fans of the late Dalida.
Guess what? I actually found it to be a quite enjoyable film, of obvious particular interest to those who know about the portrayed singer's huge professional success (she is relatively unknown in the US and the UK but was a tremendous star throughout Europe, the Middle East and Japan) shadowed by an enormous amount of personal tragedy in her life, but pretty damn good all on its own as well.
The actress who portrays Dalida is a dead ringer for her and even though it is obvious that she is lip-syncing the songs, her ability to imitate Dalida's gestures, both on and off stage, is stunning. The supporting case also does a very good job and the director carefully stays within the boundaries of what could have otherwise been a Hollywood tear-jerker type film, never descending into pure melodrama.
If you don't know about Dalida, this film is worth a look -- if you do know about her, you should definitely see it.
Love & Mercy (2014)
Paul Giamati deserves an Oscar for this!
I won't add much to the reviews of others, but there is one thing that should be said -- while the performances of both John Cusack and Paul Dano as Brian Wilson are excellent, the performance of Paul Giamati as Eugene Landy is stellar. Instead of playing Landy as some kind of one-dimensional black-hatted "bad guy", he moves progressively from portraying a therapist who has some radical -- but perhaps effective -- "tough love" ideas about treatment, to someone more sinister, and finally to someone who might just be in need of some treatment himself for the very paranoid schizophrenia he claims to be treating in his patient.
A clear candidate for an Oscar as best supporting actor.